Ed Vulliamy

In pursuit of reconciliation

Survivors of a concentration camp in Bosnia, the site of a former iron ore mine, plead with its new owner for a memorial to the hundreds killed there.

A spectral silence hangs over the buildings: a cavernous rust-colored hangar containing heavy industrial plant and piles of tires, a deserted complex once used as a canteen, and an empty, smaller building known as the White House. Underground, there lies a seam of iron ore, which has remained untouched for 12 years since a hurricane of violence blew through this corner of Bosnia. But soon, this place will be teeming again, with the rattle of machinery and the business of its original use as a mine. And the man who has acquired it, who aims to restart the Omarska iron ore mine, is none other than Britain’s richest resident, Lakshmi Mittal, who in October became the biggest steel producer in the world.

But there are ghosts here too: This was the site of the infamous concentration camp of Omarska, operated by the Bosnian Serbs for the internment, torture and mass murder of Muslim and Croat prisoners during the summer of 1992. From that once-crammed hangar, men were called for barbaric execution. In that White House, they were slaughtered by the hundred. Above that canteen, women were serially raped. On an L-shaped strip of concrete land in between, an orgy of killing and torture was unleashed.

Now, survivors of the camp, and relatives of the hundreds killed there, are pleading with Mittal not to reconvert the mine without preserving some installations in commemoration of what happened. But their pleas present Mittal with a potential challenge: His partners in a joint venture to restart iron ore extraction at Omarska and other mines are the Bosnian Serb authorities, whom Mittal — by admission of his own staff — does not want to antagonize. Those same Bosnian Serb authorities have shown little sign of admission, let alone commemoration, of what happened in the camp managed by their countrymen.

A second problem concerns the possibility that bodies remain buried — perhaps even in mass graves — within the three mines in the complex acquired by Mittal, of which Omarska is one. Work has just concluded at one mass grave only two miles from the Omarska site, from which the remains of 420 men murdered in the camp were retrieved. In October 2001, another mass grave containing 353 bodies was found within another mine in the complex bought by Mittal, called Ljubija.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that there are bodies as yet unfound within the mine of Omarska and its vicinity,” said Amor Masovic, president of the Bosnian government’s Commission for Tracing Missing Persons, which exhumes the graves. “We are not talking about dozens of bodies here; we are talking about hundreds.”

In three separate petitions and letters to Mittal, survivors this week pleaded for the premises in which prisoners were killed to be preserved and dedicated for commemoration of the dead, and also for the historical record and in pursuit of reconciliation in Bosnia.

One comes from groups representing camp survivors and relatives of the dead who have returned to the Kozarac neighborhood near Omarska. Sabahudin Garibovic, a spokesman for one of those groups, the Association of Camp Inmates, said: “It is important to mark the Omarska camp to honor the memory of the Bosniaks and Croats imprisoned and killed there, not only for our future but for the future of Bosnia, for the reconciliation process.”

Another comes from a Bosnian diaspora network based in the U.K. and a third from a Dutch-based foundation of survivors, addressed to Mittal at his company headquarters in Rotterdam. “You own a place with a legacy,” it submits. “Although you are not responsible for what happened there, we hope you will look compassionately upon our request so that the past will not be forgotten.”

Mittal made his fortune by buying tired steelworks in the developing world and former Communist countries and turning them round. In late October, he overtook the billionaire owner of Chelsea FC, Roman Abramovich, to become Britain’s richest resident. He did this by concluding a $4.5 billion takeover of the U.S. International Steel Group, making his group the first truly global steel empire. Meanwhile, the tycoon oversaw a refinancing of his companies to bring about a vast new entity, Mittal Steel, of which Mittal personally owns 88 percent. “These transactions dramatically change the landscape of the steel industry,” he said at the time.

“He’s the modern Carnegie,” said Robert Jones, editor at the Metal Bulletin trade journal. “He is the industry’s biggest risk-taker, and it has paid off spectacularly so far. He has changed the face of the steel industry.”

Most prominent in the public eye was Mittal’s involvement at the center of a “cash for favors” scandal involving Tony Blair, an acquaintance of his. Two months after Mittal had donated 125,000 pounds to the Labor Party, the prime minister put his authority behind Mittal’s bid to take over the giant Romanian state steelmaker Sidex. He sent a personal letter to the Romanian prime minister, Adrian Nastase, saying that to choose what Blair — wrongly — called a British company would favor Romania’s bid for European Union membership. (Mittal’s empire is registered in the Dutch Antilles tax haven.) Romania’s Foreign Ministry later cited Blair’s letter as having helped the deal go through. In the spring, Mittal again aroused curiosity when, for 70 million pounds, he bought Britain’s most expensive residence, in Kensington Palace Gardens in London.

Now, Mittal wants to restart mining at Omarska, one of three mines in the Ljubija complex, all of which fall within the jurisdiction of the hard-line nationalist Serbian Republic statelet within Bosnia. Mittal bought a 51 percent controlling share in the mining complex on April 30, with 49 percent remaining with the RZR Ljubija company, owned by the Serbian Republic itself.

Mittal committed to investing $40 million in order to develop the mines, in an area badly needing employment. (This year the billionaire also bought a majority share in the steelworks formerly supplied by Omarska’s ore, at Zenica, on the other side of Bosnia’s ethnic divide, in the Muslim-Croat Federation.)

“It is only logical,” said Masovic, “to ask whether concentration camps should be turned into iron ore mines, car parks, shopping centers and so on. They should at least mark Omarska as the place where thousands suffered and hundreds died.” Garibovic said: “The ball is now in Mittal’s court. Will he be the one who will make the concession and let us symbolically mark the place where the atrocities took place?”

Mittal limited his response to the Guardian to a brief statement, which reads: “We are willing to listen carefully to any requests that they may have. We are a significant investor in the area, having acquired both iron ore and steelmaking facilities, and are committed to ensuring a prosperous future for the region.”

Meanwhile, though, another Mittal Steel source familiar with the case told the Guardian: “We are in a very difficult situation. The area is largely populated by Serbs; these are the people we are currently dealing with, and we do not want to do anything to antagonize them.”

Satko Mujagic, of the Dutch-based survivors’ foundation, said: “We want the Serbs who do not know everything that happened to know. That way, we can move forward as communities.”

But Bosnian Serb authorities have consistently argued that stories of atrocities in Omarska are unfounded, or else refuse to discuss them. Security guards at the mine told the Guardian: “There was no camp here. It was all Muslim lies.” The director of the Ljubija mining enterprise, Ranko Cvijic, did not return the Guardian’s calls. Nor did the Bosnian Serb official overseeing privatization, Zoran Dosan, whose assistant said inquiries about atrocities were “not relevant.” However, the horrors of Omarska are well documented, not least by judges’ rulings in successive trials at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague.

In 2002, the Bosnian Serb president, Biljana Plavsic, submitted a rare plea of guilty to an indictment describing atrocities in Omarska as part of a wholesale program of persecution. A year earlier, an entire trial was devoted to Omarska and two other camps, resulting in the conviction of four men. In their findings of fact, the judges said: “The chamber is convinced that hundreds of detainees were killed or disappeared in the Omarska camp between May and August” 1992.

They described a hellish place in which “extreme brutality was systematic,” where “dead bodies were left to fester for days at a time and a terrible stench and fear pervaded the camp.” The judges found “a regular stream of murders, torture and other forms of physical and mental violence” and “unbearable conditions [which] appear to have driven the detainees insane.” Killings were usually by shooting, beating or cutting of throats, although on one night of frenzied killing, prisoners were incinerated on a pyre of burning tires. On another occasion, “the corpses were so numerous, they covered some 50 or 70 meters.”

“What matters,” said Edin Kararic, a survivor of the camp who now lives in Watford, Hertfordshire, U.K., and works as a tanker driver, “is that the memory of what happened in Omarska not be allowed to disappear. That there must be something to say ‘this happened,’ and this was the place. Something to which we can go each year, to show the children, lay flowers. Something that future generations can learn from, so that it does not happen again.”

“Whatever the price, I had to tell the truth”

A Saudi woman talks about what happened when she dared to challenge the society's culture of violence against women.

By the time she was in her early 20s, Rania al-Baz had become one of the best known and best loved faces in her home country of Saudi Arabia. As presenter of a program called “The Kingdom This Morning” on state-owned television, her hair was always covered by a hijab, as is required, but her face remained uncovered, and she would choose head scarves of defiantly flamboyant colors to cover her immaculately styled hair. She became, for hundreds of thousands of Saudi women, admirable, enviable and challenging — and, thus, an implicit threat to a society in which women are forced to cover themselves, are not allowed to drive, cannot vote or participate in political life, cannot leave home unless accompanied by a chaperone or travel without authorization from a father or husband, and cannot establish a business without a male sponsor.

Then, suddenly, on April 13, 2004, Baz disappeared from the airwaves. When she emerged two weeks later, her face was all over the newspapers, but it was barely recognizable. Her husband had savagely assaulted her, slamming her face against the marble-tiled floor of their home until it suffered 13 fractures. He was disposing of what he assumed to be her dead body when she showed signs of life and, panicking, he took her to the hospital, where doctors gave her only a 70 percent chance of survival.

During the days in which Baz was in a coma, fighting for her life, her father took photographs of her grotesquely disfigured face. And after she recovered, she decided to permit the photographs to be published, thus doing what no woman in the kingdom had ever done. Of course, there was nothing particularly unusual about her bruises: Baz was a victim of one of the world’s most common, and least punished, crimes. But in Saudi Arabia especially, Baz had shattered a wall of silence about domestic violence. The images of her grotesquely bruised and swollen face sent shockwaves through her country and around the world, casting an unwelcome but glaring spotlight on the abuse of women that thrives behind the mask of Saudi religious dogmatism. Baz would also go on to divorce her husband — almost unheard of in Saudi Arabia, where divorce is invariably the other way around — and win custody of her children, again in defiance of precedent.

Fifteen months after the attack that nearly killed her, Baz is in Paris, visiting for a few days. We had intended to meet in Jeddah, where she lives, but she feels safer, she says, talking outside Saudi Arabia. “It would have been hard for me, even for you maybe, to talk there — who knows?” So instead we meet at a hotel in the Latin Quarter. This evening, she wears no hijab; she is carefully made up, her hair meticulously cut. “I love Paris,” she enthuses, surveying the night. “It is a lovers’ city.” She and her former husband, Mohammed al-Fallatta, came here for their honeymoon. “At first,” she says, “we could not be parted. He swept me off my feet.”

After 12 operations, Baz has recovered her beauty — if anything, the few scars that remain are cogent, rather than disfiguring. She sips a glass of St. Emilion and emphasizes that she is a devout Muslim. “But I do not think about who is Muslim or who is Christian — we all come from God,” she says. “None of this is about a religion; it is about society. What happened to me happens to women all over the world. But you can take what happens to women all over the world, and in Saudi Arabia, multiply it by 10.

“It is a society in which we have the worst of all worlds. We have a private, closed society according to the Bedouin tribal system, mixed with Givenchy and the invasion of technology from the West. We have the traditions of the Bedouin equipped with every technological gadget you can imagine. And then we have the people who hate anything American or Western. And all the world sees is an Arab country, full of oil and full of money.”

As an ebullient teenager growing up within such a system, she says she suffered from frustration leading to depression. Her father, Yahya, was the owner of a large chain of hotels, well connected in the political and business establishment. Baz was well educated, but her natural effervescence was tempered by what society expected of a dutiful young Saudi woman. She took refuge under the wing of a beloved uncle, Hasan, who got her to role-play with a tape recorder. “He told me: ‘Rania! Your voice! You should go on television!’”

Using his connections, her father secured his 19-year-old daughter a television audition. “It happened by chance that they gave me a job,” she says. “If there were women working in Saudi television, they were always old and veiled. I don’t think they wanted a young, beautiful lady on television, and I still don’t understand why they took me on. I think at first it was because my father had connections — only later did the man [who hired me] tell me: ‘Rania, usually, the camera eats those who talk on TV. But you eat up the cameras!’

“I had two choices before me in life: to live as a typical, good Saudi woman, or live life as I wanted to live it, as I would like to live it. Even before my accident [as she calls her ex-husband's attack], I had decided to do the second.”

In 1998, Rania married Fallatta, a singer whom she met at the television studio. It was no arranged love match; it was instant attraction. After heady days of inseparability, and later marriage, Baz’s career flourished, while his waned. Fallatta became “regularly violent” toward her, she says, but she was loath to take action, leave or denounce him for fear of losing custody of her three young children, as usually happens in Saudi divorce cases. “Once, I complained to my grandmother,” says Baz. “I said, ‘I am like his maid in the house.’ And she replied straightforwardly, ‘Correct, you are his maid.’”

On the night of April 12 last year, Fallatta returned home to find his wife on the telephone. “There has been innuendo that I had a lover to justify what he did,” says Baz, “but that was not true. It was a female friend, and when he came in I put the phone down. We talked and he became violent — he was a violent man, important in his own eyes, and possessive.”

She pleaded with her husband not to beat her, but he punched her in the face. “I’m not going to beat you, I am going to kill you,” he said. Then he began to smash her head, face down, against the floor, while a servant and their 5-year-old son watched. At the same time he was also throttling her, releasing his grip momentarily to demand that she repeat the Shahadah testimony of faith — which Islam requires a dying person to recite — three times: “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger.” Baz obediently spoke her lines until she lost consciousness.

Fallatta then showered, changed his clothes and put what he thought was his wife’s dead body into their car, driving off with the apparent intent of burying her. But as she regained partial consciousness, he panicked and dropped her off at Bugshan hospital, saying she had been involved in a car crash and that he had to hurry back to the scene to try to rescue others involved.

“I was in a coma for four days,” says Baz, “during which time my father visited my bedside, refusing to believe the story about the car accident: ‘What about the rest of the body?’ he thought. It was obvious what had happened. When I came to, I discovered that my father had taken the photographs, and kept them. He wanted to publish them, so my husband would be punished. I said at first, ‘He is my husband,’ and was reluctant. I should accept my weakness, I thought. I was worried about my career, my children, my future, my reputation.” But then Baz’s colleagues from the television station began to visit her. “They saw my face. They were such friends, and gave me strength. They agreed with my father that I should publish the pictures and denounce my husband.

“This was my moment of dilemma. All my professional life, I had been on television, trying to get people, especially women, to talk about the day-to-day dealings of their lives. And now this has happened in my life — and I am not going to talk about it? Can I tell their stories, but not even tell my own? So I decided that whatever the price, I had to tell the truth. I wanted to be some kind of window into what is actually happening to women in my country. I had no choice but to speak out. And so I became a voice — the moment you describe what is going on in that country, you become a voice.”

The response to her decision to go public was momentous. Columnists in the English-language Arab News called Baz “a ground-breaker” and her decision “a sensation in this private society.” A princess in the Saudi royal family paid her medical bills. But alongside the messages of support were mutterings that a woman shouldn’t have been working in television, and perhaps should not have been surprised. Some papers expressed astonishment that “a woman should betray her husband.” “There was only a little direct criticism of what I did, but still no one wanted to discuss the issue. No one wanted to open the Pandora’s box. As with everything else in Saudi society, people do not want to discuss things openly; it is all behind closed doors.”

Fallatta, who had gone into hiding, eventually gave himself up. With an initial charge of attempted murder reduced to grievous assault, he was sentenced to 300 lashes and six months in jail. At first, he refused to sue for divorce (it is almost unheard of for a woman to divorce a man in Saudi Arabia), calling Baz “an unfit mother,”,but a court ordered him to do so. As part of the settlement, his prison sentence was halved after Baz publicly pardoned him and waived a compensation suit. The pardon, she now confirms, “was only in order to secure custody of the children” — a very rare achievement for a divorced woman in Saudi Arabia.

The consequence of Baz’s decision to speak out is that she has become a curious mix of celebrity and outcast; she is openly admired by some, regarded as a dissident by others. Having planned to return to work as soon as she recovered, she found herself unwelcome in television. “And this kills me,” she says. She wonders about going into business of some kind, or whether she should leave the country, whether she could find work in the West. “After all, one has to have a job.”

“I feel completely outside my own country and society because of what it is, and because of what I did. Sometimes, this is painful — I could have provided my children with a better future if I had been quiet about what happened. I live with a kind of fear, and with an internal struggle. I have to find some compromise: between my own position and telling my story in order to get the attention of people internationally and at home. Sometimes I ask myself: ‘Who are you to be telling your story like this?’”

For all her moments of doubt, Baz has fundamentally challenged the culture of silence in her country over violence against women. “In our country, if a woman complains to the police or a member of the family that her husband is violent, she is told to be patient, men are like that. What will the neighbors say? What will your family and friends say? Do nothing, otherwise he will divorce you. You will be a divorced woman, a whore; you will lose your future. So if a woman is abused, there is this mixture of humiliation and pride. She is afraid of speaking out, of being criticized. She wants to keep this perfect image of a woman.

“And this is what we have to change among women. We have to change ourselves, to awaken women who think that for her husband to beat her is normal, and that she must remain silent in public.”

In May, thanks largely to Baz’s stand, the first-ever research study on domestic violence in Saudi Arabia was completed at King Saud University in Riyadh, uncovering a terrifying culture of abused women, invariably silent, 90 percent of whom had seen their own mothers similarly abused. Rania “has become iconic,” says her lawyer, Omar al-Khouli, who works with the local branch of the National Committee for Human Rights. “Hers was the first case the committee handled, and now more and more women are demanding their rights after her case — not just over domestic violence but the whole system of discrimination in our society.”

“The crucial thing,” says Baz, “is that the structure of society — the fact that a woman cannot drive or travel without authorization, for example — gives a special sense of strength to the man. And this strength is directly connected to the violence. It creates a sense of immunity, that he can do whatever he wants, without sanction. The core issue is not the violence itself, it is this immunity for men, the idea that men can do what they like. It is the society of which the violence is an expression.”

Baz is in Paris also to see the publisher of a memoir, published in French this month. As we meet, she is carrying a thick, unwrapped, disarrayed Arabic manuscript written in red Biro pen. “The book is in itself another big step for me to take,” she says. “Another taboo, another road to take. Just to publish a book about what has happened will have further consequences for me in Saudi Arabia. Yes, I am nervous about those consequences. The whole situation is very delicate back there. When the book is published, the issue of what I did will be raised all over again. All the questions will be asked again.

“In the end, I may lose my fight,” she reflects in a rare moment of stillness, her hands frozen for a moment in midair. “But at least I did not accept things the way they are.”

Continue Reading Close